Skip to main content
Glama
KitchenSink4AI

io.github.nometalalchemist/kitchensink4xl

by KitchenSink4AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate Workbook

validate
Read-only

Run read-only correctness checks on Excel workbooks and return a pass/fail report covering structure, references, names, merges, tables, formatting bloat, external links, and stale calculations.

Instructions

Run read-only correctness checks and return one report. checks (default ['structure', 'references', 'calc_staleness']): structure (package opens clean, sheet integrity), references (#REF!/#NAME? and the other error cells), names (broken defined names), merges (overlapping or orphaned merged ranges), tables (duplicate names, broken refs, overlaps), formatting_bloat (the audit_styles counters against the 64,000-format ceiling), hazards (the round-trip scan as a check), external_links (links reported, not repaired), calc_staleness (formulas lacking cached values, which read as blank outside Excel). Returns {passed, results: {check: {passed, findings}}}; findings keep the underlying ops' shapes where those exist, and passed=false means findings, not a failed call. Read-only, always; repairs live in the editing tools. Works while the file is open in Excel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
checksNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even though readOnlyHint already covers safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: the default checks, the exact return shape {passed, results: {check: {passed, findings}}}, the fact that passed=false means findings rather than a failed call, and that findings retain underlying ops' shapes. It also discloses that the tool works while the file is open and that repairs are intentionally out of scope. There is no conflict with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then uses a structured list for checks; every clause carries semantic content. It is longer than a minimal description because of the detailed check list, but the detail is justified for a tool with many options.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the full return shape and the meaning of passed=false, and explains all available check options. It also addresses safety, repair routing, and open-file behavior, so an agent has what it needs to invoke validate correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides no descriptions for either parameter, but the description compensates by documenting the checks parameter in depth: the default list, every supported check name, and what each one validates. Path is not elaborated, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool's purpose. The only minor gap is that the schema's default null and the textual default list are not explicitly reconciled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run read-only correctness checks and return one report' on the workbook, and enumerates supported checks. It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only validation pass, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling diagnose_workbook, which may occupy a similar diagnostic role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Read-only, always; repairs live in the editing tools,' which provides an exclusion and points to alternatives for fixing issues. It also notes that external_links are 'reported, not repaired' and that the tool works while the file is open, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer diagnose_workbook, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools